A coalition of 54 agriculture groups is urging the Biden administration to drop its support for allowing states to impose their own warning labels—in addition to federal labels—on consumer products.
In the litigation, Bayer reached a settlement deal in principle with plaintiffs in 2020 but failed to secure court approval for a separate agreement on how to handle future cases.
Monsanto, based in Creve Coeur, Missouri, was purchased and absorbed in 2018 by Bayer AG, a multinational pharmaceutical and life sciences company based in Leverkusen, Germany, for $63 billion.
Cancer patient Edwin Hardeman is a Roundup user in California who was awarded $25 million in damages against the company. He blames Roundup for his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The appeal came last year after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected the company’s appeal of the verdict in favor of Hardeman.
The circuit court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) didn’t preempt a California law requiring Roundup and other products containing glyphosate to feature disclosures about that chemical’s reported cancer risk. California considers glyphosate to be carcinogenic, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which enforces FIFRA, does not.
Bayer argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that claims that Roundup causes cancer in humans lack scientific foundation. The circuit court’s “errors mean that a company can be severely punished for marketing a product without a cancer warning when the near-universal scientific and regulatory consensus is that the product does not cause cancer, and the responsible federal agency has forbidden such a warning.”
The new position articulated by the solicitor general, that is, that federal law and regulations don’t prevent states from imposing their own labeling requirements, even if those labels run counter to federal findings, “is a stunning reversal from previous, bipartisan administrative policy,” the coalition said in a statement.
The new policy explained in the brief “would set a dangerous precedent that threatens the science-based regulatory process.” The members of the coalition worry that “this new policy, along with having environmental impacts, could ultimately hinder the ability of U.S. farmers to help meet growing global food needs intensified by the invasion of Ukraine.”
Industry leaders shared their views in the coalition statement.
American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall said: “Farmers utilize science-backed crop protection tools on their farms to produce safe, nutritious food. Allowing labels that conflict with existing conclusions and EPA studies will add to a greater misunderstanding of the crucial role pesticides play in enabling farmers to grow healthy, affordable food for America’s families.”
Brad Doyle, president of the American Soybean Association, stated: “Federal law is clear that pesticide labels cannot be false or misleading. Allowing states to require health warnings contrary to decades of sound science is beyond disturbing and obviously not in line with federal law.
“Farmers are concerned this new policy will open the floodgate to a patchwork of state labels that will undermine grower access to safe, effective pesticides needed to farm productively and sustainably.”
Prelogar’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment over the Memorial Day weekend.